Monday, October 11, 2010

Dr. Bob Sears and Fox Friends

AC: Is there a connection between vaccines and autism? Thousands of families with autistic kids think there is. But the Centers for Disease Control has always maintained that no research supports a link. Now one famous paediatrician has written a book about vaccines who charges the government's studies on vaccines is woefully inadequate.

Ms. Camerota introduces Dr. Bob Sears (BS), author of The Vaccine Book, which was published three years ago.

AC: The government says they have studied vaccines and they do not cause autism. But has the government ever studied the amount of vaccines that our children get in 1 sitting?

BS: That is what me and my colleagues at SafeMinds are a little worried about...there is a CDC report that says that usually simultaneous vaccination has not been completely studied for safety and that's what we're worried about. Babies get as many as 6 or 7 vaccines altogether...and the CDC is admitting that they aren't always researched that way. The prime example is the flu vaccine. They've researched the flu vaccine in great detail when given alone, but the CDC has never researched it when given in conjunction with all the other shots...and that's what we're worried about.

Dr. Bob alludes to some CDC report that states that simultaneous vaccination has not been completely studied for safety yet doesn't provide any further information about this. However, the CDC information regarding simultaneous vaccination does not support what Dr. Bob claims. For instance, from the CDC's Vaccine Safety Page:

Is simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccinations safe? Wouldn't it be safer to separate combination vaccines and spread them out, vaccinating against just one disease at a time?

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate. Research is underway to find methods to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection (for example, MMR and chickenpox). This will provide all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but will require fewer shots.
Another advantage is that combination vaccines result in fewer shots and less discomfort for children. In addition, spreading out the administration of separate vaccines may leave children unnecessarily vulnerable to disease.

Dr. Bob mentions that influenza vaccine has not been tested with the childhood schedule as the 'prime example', when, in fact, it's the only example. Vaccine safety studies are addressed later. Ms. Camerota continues:

AC: Let me show (CDC Infant Vaccine Schedule) our viewers how many different vaccines some children can get in one sitting. At two months they get five or six, same at four months. At six months they get tons! At 12 months they get up to six, at 15 months they get up to six. Why isn't the CDC looking at these combinations?

BS: (Nodding in agreement and not providing any corrections to these assertions.) Well I think the CDC is just assuming that they are safe. Because there is no real evidence that they causes [sic] any harm...But I would like to see more research on it and I think that parents want to be confident in vaccines. And as a paediatrician, I give vaccines in my office every day. But I want to know that these large combinations are safe. And what I do as a paediatrician, is I spread the vaccines out. I give no more than two vaccines at a time to any babies in my office. It takes longer to vaccinate them that way but I think it's a safer way to go.

There are not 'tons' of vaccines at six months; actually the same at two and four months and as a matter of course, three or four at 12 months and two or three at 15-18 months. Dr. Bob not only spreads these out but omits some as well, and not necessarily ones that can or should be omitted and not some that should be as delayed as he has them. He also eschews combination vaccines which reduce the number of jabs and vaccine constituents, while getting infants protected more timely than his recommendations. Here are his evidence-free justifications for his recommendations:

By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.

I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain (See Resources, page 250 of The Vaccine Book to view the research on this).

I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.

Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.

Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.

Since Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. John Snyder have already critiqued Dr. Bob's schedules, I don't feel compelled to reiterate their reviews. However, it does bear repeating that Dr. Bob's schedules have not been tested for safety and efficacy; he merely assumes that his recommendations are better because he has set up numerous faulty assertions that the CDC schedule is bad. He cannot say that his schedules are safer because he has never put them through the rigours of testing, namely, do they protect infants from vaccine preventable diseases that they would otherwise not have and do his schedules prevent all of the bogey-man disorders that he claims fully vaccinating do or may cause? He has done nothing to alleviate the fears and concerns that parents have since his book is rife with dubiousstudies that only serve to incite parental concerns and fears about vaccinating.

Dr. Sears creates controversy surrounding vaccine excipients where there really isn't any, by either misinterpreting or omitting relevant scientific literature. It is a shame that Dr. Bob has chosen to pander to anti-vaccine rhetoric, for the premise of his book seemed appropriately timely, however his execution was sophomoric and clearly intended to further his own agenda and biases. Ms. Camerota continues:

AC: It's interesting that you say that because the CDC in part says that they have combined all these vaccines because parents have clamoured for that...parents say, we don't want to have to keep bringing our kids in every two months and giving them different shots, let's just get it all over with. So perhaps they have acquiesced to parents desires but in a dangerous way.

BS: Right, you know 20, 30 years ago we only gave babies two vaccines at a time with a total of about eight injections throughout their childhood. Now we give babies six or seven vaccines each time and over 50 injections spread throughout their childhood. So I think parents would rather go the extra mile and and [sic] spread the vaccines out cause [sic] I think parents feel like their babies are being overloaded.

Today, children are receiving about 30 vaccines by six years old and three of those are not injections, 36 if parents diligently vaccinate their children for influenza, which are actually very few, less than 30% most years. So it is very difficult to determine how Dr. Bob calculated 50 injections, however, his own recommendation to split MMR up into six as opposed to two injections would get children closer to that.

AC: Certainly if they're educated, I think you're right about that. We asked the CDC for their response to that fact that you say their research has been woefully inadequate, here is their response to us:

"Vaccination is the single most important step parents can take to protect their children from life threatening diseases which once killed thousands of children each year. Scientific data from years and years of research show that vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines do not overload the immune system. Vaccines contain only a tiny fraction of the antigens that babies encounter in their environment every day. We do know that delaying vaccines puts children at known risk of becoming ill with vaccine-preventable diseases."

- Tom Skinner, CDC Spokesperson, 1 October 2010

BS: Well I agree with most of that, especially you don't want to delay vaccines for very serious diseases like meningitis or whooping cough. However I think the CDC's argument about the thousands of germs that we can tolerate every day...I think that's scientifically invalid because I think they are talking about germs that we inhale, or germs that we swallow. Those germs are exposed to our immune system in a natural way, in our intestines and our respiratory passages, our immune system processes those germs. But when you inject germs directly into the body you by-pass the immune system completely and internal part, the bloodstream immune system has to see the germs and attack them, it's a very unnatural type of germ exposure.

It appears as though Dr. Bob has attended the 'Jenny McCarthy School of Immunology' . His statements regarding 'natural' versus vaccine immune responses invoke one of the most erroneous and overused canards of anti-vaccinationists. I can't quite parse what Dr. Bob is saying because his description of immunity isn't corroborated by anything known about how the immune system works. How could he possibly explain an immune response to antigens (or germs as he puts it) that are introduced 'directly into our bodies' via cuts or insect vectors? Is this also 'unnatural'? He also seems to believe that this 'natural way' is completely infallible and compartmentalised such that pathogens cannot breech this. So how does he explain the fact that pathogens have adapted to evade our innate immune system and requiring our adaptive immunity (perhaps what he is referring to as 'bloodstream immune system') creating antibodies to rid ourselves of them?

Vaccination does by-pass some front line non-specific immune defences, but certainly don't 'by-pass the immune system completely', for if they did, we wouldn't produce antibodies and immune memory defences against pathogens when we encounter them. The whole point of vaccination is to 'teach' our immune system how to deal with the real thing, by using parts of bacteria or inactivated or attenuated viruses. And they work! Which shouldn't be the case according to Dr. Bob's primer on the immune system. It takes quite a bit of knowledge on a topic to be able to reduce complex concepts down to a few sound bites. So Dr. Bob's conjecture about vaccine versus natural immunity is the chasmic difference between dumbing something down and just sounding dumb.

AC: The CDC also said that they have done lots of research...it's interesting because they, they CDC has long cited 2 studies done by these Danish researchers that show that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism. Well now the lead researcher is being investigated. Why?

BS: Right, he was kind of double-dipping so to speak. He was taking money from the CDC to do this research, he was also under salary from the Danish Universities [sic] and that was against his contract and apparently that went against the rules and now, according to Danish newspapers, he has skipped town with 2 million dollars worth of Danish research money and that sort of calls into question the validity of his research.

Notice the dates of publication and the order of the authors. Ms. Camerota and Dr. Bob have referred to the lead author which is Dr. Madsen for both, well he isn't the author in question. That would be Dr. Poul Thorsen, the sixth and fourth author, respectively. Respectful Insolence has explained this relevance in great detail, but an author that far down on the list has not made a very significant contribution. In fact, Dr.s Madsen and Melbye, the senior authors of the studies released a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer several months ago regarding Dr. Thorsen's involvement:

"Poul Thorsen had absolutely no influence on the conclusions regarding this paper," wrote Mads Melbye, head of the division of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen and senior author of the study, in response to e-mailed questions.
"Thorsen was not actively involved in the analysis and interpretation of the results of this paper," Melbye said.
The second study, published in Pediatrics in 2003, examined 956 Danish children diagnosed with autism from 1971 to 2000. It concluded the incidence of autism increased in Denmark after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, the lead author, said Thorsen played a minor role.
"Dr. Thorsen was not in a position to change or compromise the data," Madsen wrote. "Dr. Thorsen was part of the review cycle, but never very active in giving input. Dr. Thorsen never had access to the raw data nor the analysis of the data."

As for the dates, the studies were published in 2002 and 2003 but Dr. Thorsen's resignation under dubious circumstances did not occur until March, 2009. Furthermore, the grant money in question was not part of the 2 studies in question at all, but rather part of a cooperative between the US National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities,CDC and Odense and Aarhus Universities. And absolutely nothing at all questionable about that; it was the discovery of forged documents by (allegedly) Dr. Thorsen that may constitute fraud. Apparently, Dr. Thorsen held a full-time post at Emory University, Georgia, USA while still employed by Aarhus University in Copenhagen, Denmark and that is what comprised of his 'double-dipping', not a grant from the CDC as Dr. Bob stated. Dr. Thorsen is not missing as he continues to publish studies. We don't know what the funding irregularity was but we do know it has nothing to do with the 2002 and 2003 studies and we do know that Dr. Thorsen's involvement with those studies is being inflated to extremes for the purpose of disparaging them. It is as though Dr. Bob read the Huffington Post and Age of Autism, didn't bother to ask himself if it made sense, didn't do a little fact-checking and merely parroted extremely questionable sources.

But Dr. Bob acts as though these 2 studies were the lynch pins for exonerating vaccines in the role of autism. Even if we were to dismiss these studies, Dr. Bob completely ignores the numerous other studies by other investigators, in numerous countries that replicate Madsen et al.'s research and then some. A hat tip to Chris (comment #63) for putting this list together (I have added some recent studies) Addendum 04.18.11 added more studies:

Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children: A Case-Control Study.
Budzyn D, et al.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
Subjects: 96 children with autism, ages 2 to 15, as well as 192 children in a control group. For children diagnosed before a diagnosis of autism, the autism risk was lower in children who received MMR vaccine than in nonvaccinated children. A similar result was achieved for the single-antigen measles vaccine.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision in Omnibus Autism Proceeding
On Feb. 12, 2009, the “vaccine court” ruled in three test cases on the theory that MMR vaccine and the vaccine preservative thimerosal are linked to autism. The court found the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to this theory.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026

Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Hornig M et al.
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
*Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Baird G et al.
Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

Is There a ‘Regressive Phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder Associated with the Measles Mumps-Rubella Vaccine? ACPEA Study
Richler et al.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Apr;36(3):299-316.
Subjects: A multi-site study of 351 children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 31 typically developing children used caregiver interviews to describe the children’s early acquisition and loss of social-communication milestones. No evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles, mumps and rubella vaccination.

No Effect of MMR Withdrawal on the Incidence of Autism: a Total Population Study.
Honda H, et al.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.
Subjects: Study examined incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) to age 7 for children born between 1988 and 1996 in Yokohama, Japan. The measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination rate in Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988-92, and no MMR vaccines were administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age 7 increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.

Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66
*Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls

No Evidence for Links Between Autism, MMR and Measles Virus.
Chen W, et al.
Psychol Med. 2004 Apr;34(3):543-53.
Subjects: Study compared 2,407 persons with autism born between 1959 and 1993; to 4,640 Down syndrome subjects born between 1966 and 1993. No increased risk of autism was found following exposures to wild measles and vaccinations with monovalent measles, and Urabe or Jeryl-Lynn variants of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.
Lingam R et al.
Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
*Subjects: 567 children with autistic spectrum disorder

Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
Makela A et al.
Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
*Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland

Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
Black C et al.
BMJ 2002; 325:419-21
*Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
*Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
Fombonne E et al.
Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
*Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)

Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
Davis RL et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
*Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each

Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
Dales L et al.
JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5
*Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600–1,900 children each year)

Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
Kaye JA et al.
BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
*Subjects: 305 children with autism

MMR and Autism: Further Evidence Against a Causal Association.
Farrington CP, et al.
Vaccine. 2001 Jun 14;19(27):3632-5.
Subjects: Data from an earlier measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine study (Taylor et al, 2000) were reanalyzed to test a second hypothesis. Results provide further evidence against a causal association between MMR vaccination and autism.

Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
Heron J, Golding J, ALSPAC Study Team
Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):577-583

This is, obviously, a lot of reading to do but considering the totality of evidence it is the responsible tact to take when advising the public about vaccine issues. There are concerns and criticisms regarding the CDC vaccine schedule, but they are rather mundane when compared to the misleading and downright false conjectures that self-proclaimed experts would have us believe. There seems to be an anti-intellectual movement afoot but with the taskmasters absurdly co-opting the esteem of education and credentials to propagate it.

It is encouraging to see that this interview was done by Fox News since they are renowned for their unapologetic biases and don't even bother to offer up any pretence of presenting a fair balance of issues. An appearance on Fox News is akin to has-been and never-were celebrities breathing their last gasp on Dancing With the Stars. It signifies the downward spiral of the anti-intellectual, anti-vaccine movement. And that is a good thing.

25 comments:

Great post there Science Mom, it's pretty sad that there are still those in the media willing to climb on the autism.vaccines bandwagon, despite the fact that the wheels fell off that particular vehicle a long time ago.

Thanks for doing the hard work. I saw the Dr. Bob segment & just got too grumpy to tackle it. I did, however link to it from the comments on Shannon Rosa's piece Why My Child With Autism Is Fully Vaccinated

Nicely done! It is great to see such a clear post about the Fox BS :)I have always wondered, with the 'too many too soon' chant, which vaccines these parents would choose over what? Looking at your newborn, how does one decide "gee, I sure don't want my little angel to get polio...but pertusis? heck! why not! that one sounds fun!"....

Funny, Science Mom; I have serious concerns about what the public has been and is continuing to be told about the safety of vaccines, and yet I don't consider myself a member of "the anti-science brigade". You, and the other folks on this site, apparently do. So I guess this isn't my place to air my concerns. Sad stuff, this polarization going on in this matter. It's too serious to be left to the close-minded.

Thanks for the list of references and kudos to Elise for writing to the morning show in question. I think the final comments of this post are wrong, though. I think Sears could continue to get attention and promote himself as a celebrity. For example, he managed to get himself and his "Autism Book" (which promotes biomed autism treatments) mentioned in a seemingly nice, noncontroversial article from April 2010:

Oh Science Mom, this American mother is curious to what you think about progressive countries like Finland banning the flu vaccination for kids under 18. I hear France is likely going to do that, too. You can freely google the information, as it is all over the internet, no need to cite references.

Why not something original and informative, like perhaps the news article about Finland and France suspending the vaccine. Because I am looking, and I cannot find it (except for one less than credible news site).

Oh Science Mom, this American mother is curious to what you think about progressive countries like Finland banning the flu vaccination for kids under 18. I hear France is likely going to do that, too. You can freely google the information, as it is all over the internet, no need to cite references.

What is your criteria for 'progressive'? Finland banned H1N1 vaccination as a knee-jerk reaction to the reports of an association with narcolepsy. What exactly is your point?

-Criticizing someone based on an association is a red herring.-Studies published and cited are not necessarily representative of good science. i.e. lack basic scientific methodology required of even a grade-school science project. For further example, I pulled one citation of your list: "New Hib with all infant vaccines:" A study with no control group. Really. All three of the research groups had a combination vaccine sequence applied. Not one of the research groups stood as a control to study effects, if any, of one vaccine in isolation as a comparison group to a group receiving more than one vaccine. And this is just one cursory glance at one study.-True, injecting vaccines does not bypass the immune system completely; the effect(s) of vaccines is not solely determined by the effects of the antigens, however, and this is likely to what Dr. Bob was referring. Preservative metals/adjuvants/squalene...natural vectors or not, not something with which the body can deal as effectively if injected vs. ingested. -The Dr. Thorsen stuff is similar to the Dr. Wakefield stuff: take into account who is saying what, why, and the background of the story, and the PR jabs more or less just fade away as politics. -The lack of scientific validity is still at issue. The CDC is largely not responsible in this regard. The media are largely not responsible in this regard. Physicians are largely not responsible in this regard. Pharmaceutical companies are largely not responsible in this regard. "There are concerns and criticisms regarding the CDC vaccine schedule, but they are rather mundane when compared to the misleading and downright false conjectures that self-proclaimed experts would have us believe. There seems to be an anti-intellectual movement afoot but with the taskmasters absurdly co-opting the esteem of education and credentials to propagate it."

...again, more red herring. Right and wrong exists on both sides of the issue, "false conjectures" and "anti-intellectual movements" are born of every interest. 'Saying it' doesn't make it so; and isn't that your point too, really?

No, often it isn't but I evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But if someone is member of, say, the Klu Klux Klan, do you honestly believe they are there just for the tea and biscuits? I'd like to see how consistent you are when evaluating an investigator who has only received a piece of pizza and a coffee mug from a pharma rep.

-Studies published and cited are not necessarily representative of good science. i.e. lack basic scientific methodology required of even a grade-school science project. For further example, I pulled one citation of your list: "New Hib with all infant vaccines:" A study with no control group. Really. All three of the research groups had a combination vaccine sequence applied. Not one of the research groups stood as a control to study effects, if any, of one vaccine in isolation as a comparison group to a group receiving more than one vaccine. And this is just one cursory glance at one study.

That highlights the impossibility for performing a 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated' study. Vaccines are the standard of care, like it or not and to with hold them is unethical. The point of the study was to evaluate the current suite of vaccines with a new Hib vaccine. The effects of the established suite of vaccines is well-known so it isn't difficult to determine if addition of a Hib vaccine is contributing to more or less reactions. Besides, the assertion by Dr. Bob (more accurately by AC and BS concurred) was that no studies exist testing multiple vaccines together and a quick PubMed search, easily refuted that. There are more studies if you like.

-True, injecting vaccines does not bypass the immune system completely; the effect(s) of vaccines is not solely determined by the effects of the antigens, however, and this is likely to what Dr. Bob was referring. Preservative metals/adjuvants/squalene...natural vectors or not, not something with which the body can deal as effectively if injected vs. ingested.

Oh do you speak for Dr. Bob now? Perhaps he should learn the proper nomenclature if he's going to appoint himself a 'vaccine expert' don't you think? He was quite clear about his statement and he was very wrong.

Emphasis added. That is a rather empty or wrong statement pending your clarification. Both humoral and cellular immune arms respond very effectively to nearly all vaccinations. In fact the humoral immune response to polysaccharide vaccines in infants is superior to that of the wild-type diseases. Do you dispute the dramatic plunge in measles and rubella disease? How can that be an ineffective vaccine response?

-The Dr. Thorsen stuff is similar to the Dr. Wakefield stuff: take into account who is saying what, why, and the background of the story, and the PR jabs more or less just fade away as politics.

I disagree. There is so much known and documented regarding Wakefield's ethical lapses and his intentional falsification of data (not just medical histories but PCR results) and very little known about what Dr. Thorsen actually did. Wakefield, with media help created a worldwide scare, Thorsen allegedly bilked Aarhus and/or the CDC out of ~2 mil dollars. I would like to know what happened and if he is guilty, should be hung out to dry. But the 2 aren't comparable as far as the public health damage that has occurred.

-The lack of scientific validity is still at issue. The CDC is largely not responsible in this regard. The media are largely not responsible in this regard. Physicians are largely not responsible in this regard. Pharmaceutical companies are largely not responsible in this regard.

Again, I disagree. While our knowledge is not perfect and is expanding, I would place the onus upon you (general you too) to be more specific and outline what data should be generated that would satisfy you.

...again, more red herring. Right and wrong exists on both sides of the issue, "false conjectures" and "anti-intellectual movements" are born of every interest. 'Saying it' doesn't make it so; and isn't that your point too, really?

No, I would say that was pretty en pointe. You are trying to create a false balance, except in a different direction. Is there criticism of public health policy regarding vaccines? Yes, but again, it's rather mundane than the outright false conjectures created by 'safer vaccine proponents', all in the name of personal validation, but mostly, for profit.

Respectmyauthority, the pharma shill gambit is lame and speaks directly to your lack of intellectual capacity to address the issues. See the previous commenter, that is how you do it.

That Shaw et al. study is as irrelevant to Gulf War Syndrome as it is for infant vaccines. It's a methodologically-sloppy piece of tosh and the results remain clinically-insignificant, just as his preceding paper with Pietrik et al.